Share this story

Net neutrality advocates are preparing one more "Day of Action" before the expiration of a key deadline for restoring the repealed rules.

In May, the US Senate narrowly voted to reverse the Federal Communications Commission's repeal of net neutrality rules. But the measure still needs majority support from the House of Representatives by a deadline of December 10, net neutrality advocates say.

Further Reading

Advocacy groups Fight for the Future and Demand Progress organized a Day of Action for Thursday this week.

"Congress has until the end of this session to reverse [FCC Chairman] Ajit Pai's net neutrality repeal—afterwards, it gets way harder to restore protections against blocking, throttling, and new fees," the groups said. "So we're bringing together tech companies, small businesses, and Internet users for an epic push on November 29th to pressure lawmakers into signing the Congressional Review Act resolution to restore net neutrality before it expires."

The effort, involving individuals and businesses that run websites, will consist of social media posts, banner ads, and website alerts. The goal is to direct people to this "deadline for net neutrality" page, where they can sign an open letter to Congress.

The effort is a long shot given President Trump's opposition to net neutrality and the fact that Republicans control the House until newly elected lawmakers are sworn in on January 3, 2019.

But advocates say public support is on their side. "Poll after poll shows that the overwhelming majority of people from across the political spectrum support strong protections against blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization of Internet content. In divided times, this is one of the few things we all agree on," their open letter to Congress says.

Without net neutrality rules, "monopolistic Internet providers like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T—some of the least popular companies in the United States—will become the dictators of our online experience: they'll control what we see, where we get our news, which businesses succeed, and which ones fail," the letter also says.

218 signatures needed

In the House, 218 members (a majority) would have to sign a discharge petition to force a floor vote, but only 177 have signed it (176 of them are Democrats). The discharge petition must be filed by December 10.

Technically, the House could vote on reversing the repeal until its session ends on January 3. But the House's Republican leadership almost certainly would not bring the measure to a vote voluntarily. Advocates are thus centering their efforts around the December 10 discharge petition deadline.

While Republicans are almost universally opposed to the effort, there are also 18 Democrats in the House that haven't signed the petition. Motherboard reviewed campaign finance filings and found that "each of the [Democratic] representatives has taken thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from one or more major telecom companies, including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and the National Cable Television Association (NCTA), an ISP trade group." (Rep. Joseph Morelle (D-N.Y.), who was sworn in this month after a special election, intends to sign the petition, according to Motherboard.)

Lawmakers who haven't supported the petition are listed here. Advocates are urging Americans to call, write to, or tweet at those lawmakers.

"It's time for members of the House to put partisan politics aside and protect the future of America's Internet... This isn't a political decision, it's a moral one," the open letter to Congress says.

While the pending resolution would restore the repealed net neutrality rules in full and prevent the FCC from overturning them again, lawmakers could achieve the same or a similar outcome by writing a net neutrality law.

House Democrats say they plan to take steps to protect net neutrality when they have the majority next year. But Republicans increased their Senate majority from 51-49 to 53-47 in the recent election, making it less likely that Democrats could get a strict net neutrality bill through both chambers of Congress.

Even if the congress was controlled by democrats, they need Trump's signature which will never happens.

THIS!! ^^^^

It wasnt going to happen, but forcing a vote on it will get them on paper, which will help with 2020 arguments, but its not going to happen. You need to get all of the half thats half conflicted with telco special interests, and some of the party that is almost entirely conflicted with telco special interests.

Im ready to move on from this story. I dont have enough popcorn to hold out through all the drama thats going to happen over then next 12 months.

While Republicans are almost universally opposed to the effort, there are also 18 Democrats in the House that haven't signed the petition. Motherboard reviewed campaign finance filings and found that "each of the [Democratic] representatives has taken thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from one or more major telecom companies...

One question here: How many of the Democratic signatories to the effort have ALSO received donations from major telecom companies? Looking at the past donations of the holdouts really doesn't provide any context.

I mean, it's not a cause and effect unless it's quantified. It makes for great inflammatory rhetoric, but context is best for greatest effect. IF NO ONE ELSE got any, or didn't get as much, then you're looking at payola and "honest politicians" (defined as the ones who do as they're paid to do) who won't oppose their owner's wishes.

OTOH, if everyone got a mostly equivalent share, then these douches need to get with the political agenda and stop sucking corporate dick like the GOP does.

The other day I went through a thought experiment. For let's say these 3 issues internet, health care, and prison reform.What if there was a super pac that would match previous year donations from the relevant special interests to allow a representative to get the same amount of money that got them into office, but then they would be detached from the special interest itself, and would only match it if they didnt get it this year from a special interest group or alternate superpac

Do you guys think a variation of this could help wrestle the strong arm of regulatory capture?

Even if the congress was controlled by democrats, they need Trump's signature which will never happens.

As much as I hate bundling unrelated legislation, if a net neutrality bill was tied to funding Trump's wall he'd sign it. Tie it to every spending bill that has so much as a dime allocated to his pet project.

Tell Trump that net neutrality will make it easier to distribute his Government News Network (see: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201 ... merica-is/) content to the world. Without it, AT&T (the owner of CNN) and Comcast (the owner of NBCUniversal) are sure to throttle his content.

The other day I went through a thought experiment. For let's say these 3 issues internet, health care, and prison reform.What if there was a super pac that would match previous year donations from the relevant special interests to allow a representative to get the same amount of money that got them into office, but then they would be detached from the special interest itself, and would only match it if they didnt get it this year from a special interest group or alternate superpac

Do you guys think a variation of this could help wrestle the strong arm of regulatory capture?

That's confusing how things work.

Corporate donors don't take a good politician and corrupt them.

They identify people who are sympathetic to their regulatory interests and then fund the campaigns of those candidates.

Removing the need for corporate cash after the fact won't change where their sympathies are.

There are 435 voting members in the House of Representatives. Care to list the names of the Republicans who don't support NN? Might be a slightly longer post.

Edit: Don't get me wrong. The Dems you listed are corporate fuck toys in this regard. But they are far from the majority. Unlike the R's.

It's sort of like how technically that one politician that was temporarily able to corrupt California's law was D. A extreme minority on one side doing something can't excuse that behavior being done by the entirety of the other side.

The other day I went through a thought experiment. For let's say these 3 issues internet, health care, and prison reform.What if there was a super pac that would match previous year donations from the relevant special interests to allow a representative to get the same amount of money that got them into office, but then they would be detached from the special interest itself, and would only match it if they didnt get it this year from a special interest group or alternate superpac

Do you guys think a variation of this could help wrestle the strong arm of regulatory capture?

That's confusing how things work.

Corporate donors don't take a good politician and corrupt them.

They identify people who are sympathetic to their regulatory interests and then fund the campaigns of those candidates.

Removing the need for corporate cash after the fact won't change where their sympathies are.

I dont think it would affect all of them by any means, but its hard to say that several reps are not beholden because they need a lot of money to run a competitive campaign. They even hide these relationships from constituents.

The people who are not part of the special interest, and just paid by them would have an attractive alternative. When we talk about non-appointed seats there are a lot outside of senate, and house that can apply here too, and that can add up.

Even if the congress was controlled by democrats, they need Trump's signature which will never happens.

As much as I hate bundling unrelated legislation, if a net neutrality bill was tied to funding Trump's wall he'd sign it. Tie it to every spending bill that has so much as a dime allocated to his pet project.

He's repeatedly torpedoed proposals that included funding for the border wall because they didn't do enough to restrict legal immigration.

Refusing to deal with the Republican-lite "Problem Solvers" is the best thing Pelosi or any Democrat can do. Also note that 5 of the 17 Democrats in the "problem solver's" caucus haven't sponsored the bill to restore NN. They're much worse than average.

ETA: The so-called "problem solvers" main problems to solve are tax cuts for the rich, Social Security cuts, Medicare cuts, and corporate giveaways.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Or, in this case, the better than it was a month ago.

Nobody here is asking for a perfect candidate, that's a strawman argument. And I find it appalling that Democrats are using terms like "litmus test" to downplay the very real concerns of their electorate, as if being electable and being far left are mutually exclusive.

This is why universal health care, net neutrality, and a green new deal are painted as radical ideas. When every race is presenting us with a choice between the lesser of two evils, we will always end up with evil in those seats.

I'd like to thank Jon Brodkin for adding the link to Deadline for Net Neutrality. After you add your name to the open letter, be sure to check whatever email you gave them - they send you a link to be able to directly call your representative. Be *sure* to lobby in this direct way for the reinstatement of Net Neutrality.

Refusing to deal with the Republican-lite "Problem Solvers" is the best thing Pelosi or any Democrat can do. Also note that 5 of the 17 Democrats in the "problem solver's" caucus haven't sponsored the bill to restore NN. They're much worse than average.

ETA: The so-called "problem solvers" main problems to solve are tax cuts for the rich, Social Security cuts, Medicare cuts, and corporate giveaways.

2) Non Citizens are not permitted to interfere in or attempt to influence elections.

3) Non corporeal entities are not permitted to interfere in or attempt to influence elections.

4) Entities who are not entitled to vote in a particular election are not permitted to interfere in or attempt to influence said election.

5) Political parties may participate in elections; however, they may only utilize resources within the boundaries of the particular election.

Election for Representative may only utilize resources from within that Congressional district. Election for Senator may utilize statewide resources. Election for President and Vice President may utilize nation wide resources.

Political parties are organizations whose sole purpose is to nominate and promote candidates for office.

Nobody here is asking for a perfect candidate, that's a strawman argument. And I find it appalling that Democrats are using terms like "litmus test" to downplay the very real concerns of their electorate, as if being electable and being far left are mutually exclusive.

This is why universal health care, net neutrality, and a green new deal are painted as radical ideas. When every race is presenting us with a choice between the lesser of two evils, we will always end up with evil in those seats.

This. The election of Trump, and all the drama that has followed it, has proven that our system of government has some serious holes in it. To seal those holes, let alone make advancements to keep America strong, let alone to keep the world something resembling stable, we need to make some very fundamental changes. That - by definition - requires some form of progressivism, to move things in a different direction. That people within the Democratic party don't support that, is a very, very bad sign, and frankly, they need to GTFO elected office, preferably by being kicked out.

It's time that there was a strong opposition to the regressive party and their cancerous policies and rhetoric. The only way to live in stable communities, localities, nations, and a stable world is by adapting to its changes. Conservatism - actual "don't fix it if it ain't broken" conservatism that is - and regressivism (modern American "conservatives") are philosophies that are by definition incapable of that.

If there's one thing the Republican party excels at (other fascism, feudalism, entitlement, corporate welfare, corruption, etc) it's sticking their collective heads in the sand and ignoring anything and everything they don't agree with until it goes away.

That people within the Democratic party don't support that, is a very, very bad sign, and frankly, they need to GTFO elected office, preferably by being kicked out.

They need to be primaried from the left. In some districts that is going to be feasible. In some it's going to be a tall order.

Challenging Kyrsten Sienema (AZ-9, a D+4 district) in the primary is reasonable.

Challenging Collin Peterson (MN-7, an R+12 district) is probably dumb. Collin Peterson is the most conservative Democrat in the House, but he's still better than whatever Republican MN-7 would vote for.

Likewise, TX-28 could support a more liberal candidate, but NJ-5 would be harder.